Jump to content

Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

why is congress exempt from the vax mandate for federal employees?

Have you been living under a rock? Don’t you know the perk of being elected to represent your fellow citizens is: rules for thee, not for me.

just kidding, I know you know. We all know, but apparently don’t give a shit. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

why is congress exempt from the vax mandate for federal employees?

And...

why does congress allow blanket immunity from legal liability for all vaccine manufacturers?

what other private industry is given protection from lawsuits over physical harm caused by its product that the government forces its citizens to use?

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 11:51 AM, Negatory said:

Oh yeah? Well since we’re on the internet, I thought you should know about my PhD in Abortionology, so really you shouldn’t talk about that anymore until you get back to school.

On 9/12/2021 at 11:54 AM, Negatory said:

And if you wanna take this offline - me and my wife have had 2 abortions for unplanned high risk pregnancies after contraceptives failed. So go ahead and judge me however you wish.

(This is where I got my PhD, they give them out at the Doctor after you pay)

On 9/12/2021 at 1:14 PM, Negatory said:

Do you ever think about how every time you have had sex with someone using a condom or birth control, you intentionally denied life to a future human being? If we want to go down playing the heart strings of all life is precious, how many human souls have you, personally, failed?

Coping and Seething: The Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 6:22 PM, Ryder1587 said:

Oh cool so now we can argue Covid AND abortion in this thread.  If you’ve made more than 2 posts in this thread suggest you stop wasting your time. The other side isn’t listening or changing their opinion.  

Hint: It's not about changing the other poster's opinion.

Remember: Thousands lurk among us.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2021 at 12:08 AM, Pooter said:

The cool part about predicting long term vaccine side effects is this: for some people those effects will manifest in the short term, so we can use that to determine if and what the long term effects will be.

There are no vaccines that exist for which there are long term effects that randomly pop up after a few years, which didn't originally manifest in the short term in some recipients. 
 

In summary, if you are worried about some 10 year-later infertility side effect from the covid shot, you are worrying about nothing. With billions of doses already administered, statistically significant infertility would have already manifested in some people if it was ever going to be a long term problem. The same applies for any other side effect. 

The idea that previously undocumented side effects are likely to show up decades down the road is both scientifically and historically illiterate. 

Just like the Sailors and asbestos right? GTFO out of here.

It's our birthright to have children and to think about our posterity, and it IS a valid concern to question how this drug affects the reproductive system. Some of us actually care for human life.

@torquedKEK you are forcing @Pooter to move the goalposts at the speed of light! 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2021 at 8:15 PM, BashiChuni said:

why is congress exempt from the vax mandate for federal employees?

While I agree with you, it’s due to one governmental branch not having authority over another. One could argue that the SCOTUS would also be exempt from Biden’s mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, dogfish78 said:

Just like the Sailors and asbestos right? GTFO out of here.

It's our birthright to have children and to think about our posterity, and it IS a valid concern to question how this drug affects the reproductive system. Some of us actually care for human life.

@torquedKEK you are forcing @Pooter to move the goalposts at the speed of light! 🤣

What goalposts exactly?  Throughout all of these discussions I have maintained the same exact points. 
 

1. the vaccine is safe and effective and no one so far has provided convincing evidence to the contrary. To include your and  @torqued's statistically illiterate flailing. 
 

2. While I think it's a very bad plan to pass on the vaccine, getting the shot should be entirely your choice unless you voluntarily surrendered some of your medical autonomy by joining the military. 
 

My suggestion, stick to what you're good at and keep posting your tangential Alex Jones-esque rants with a healthy side of racial slurs.

Edited by Pooter
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Pooter said:

1. the vaccine is safe and effective and no one so far has provided convincing evidence to the contrary. To include your and  @torqued's statistically illiterate flailing.

You should define "safe" and "effective".

Safe - Are you saying there are no adverse reactions or deaths? The statistics clearly show that there have been. Are you saying there are some, but not enough? What is the threshold? If they are safe, why can't anyone sue the manufacturer, even if batch is somehow contaminated?

Effective - Do breakthrough infections exist? Why? Why do we have boosters? Do you support mandatory boosters? How many? All of them? How would you like to see that tracked? When you have the 4th booster and someone else only has 3, are you going to attack them?

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

What goalposts exactly?  Throughout all of these discussions I have maintained the same exact points. 
 

1. the vaccine is safe and effective and no one so far has provided convincing evidence to the contrary. To include your and  @torqued's statistically illiterate flailing. 
 

2. While I think it's a very bad plan to pass on the vaccine, getting the shot should be entirely your choice unless you voluntarily surrendered some of your medical autonomy by joining the military. 
 

My suggestion, stick to what you're good at and keep posting your tangential Alex Jones-esque rants with a healthy side of racial slurs.

If you could do me the favor of not quoting that Martian I'd appreciate it; it keeps the threads more coherent and you're quoting him complicates my blocking the garbage he posts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, torqued said:

You should define "safe" and "effective".

Safe - Are you saying there are no adverse reactions or deaths? The statistics clearly show that there have been. Are you saying there are some, but not enough? What is the threshold? If they are safe, why can't anyone sue the manufacturer, even if batch is somehow contaminated?

Effective - Do breakthrough infections exist? Why? Why do we have boosters? Do you support mandatory boosters? How many? All of them? How would you like to see that tracked? When you have the 4th booster and someone else only has 3, are you going to attack them?

 

Safe - I'll refer you to the CDC, the clinical trials, and the experts in the field of immunology for that definition as they are the ones who come up with the criteria, not me. For it to be considered safe, my understanding is that adverse reactions have to be below a certain statistically significant threshold and below a certain severity threshold, both of which I also did not come up with. Much in the same way, walking out your front door is widely considered safe despite the fact that a chance does exist of you being hit in the face by a meteor.  That is because it is not a statistically significant chance. 
 

If you have statistical evidence (from a reliable source.. that you interpreted correctly) pointing in a different direction I would love to see it. Until then I will defer to the people who's entire life's work is to make these determinations. 
 

Effective - the vaccine reduces your risk of contracting covid and drastically reduces your risk of hospitalization, and death. 
 

On booster shots: why is there a new flu shot every year? Because immunity wears off and new variants emerge. As for how many boosters to get and when they will be approved for the general public, I will once again defer to experts. Much like they defer to me on matters pertaining to flying airplanes.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Safe - I'll refer you to the CDC, the clinical trials, and the experts in the field of immunology for that definition as they are the ones who come up with the criteria, not me. For it to be considered safe, my understanding is that adverse reactions have to be below a certain statistically significant threshold and below a certain severity threshold, both of which I also did not come up with. Much in the same way, walking out your front door is widely considered safe despite the fact that a chance does exist of you being hit in the face by a meteor.  That is because it is not a statistically significant chance.

We've had this discussion before. When you say "a certain statistically significant/severity threshold", it indicates you don't actually know. It may not even be your fault. Perhaps you don't know because those numbers don't exist. Even if we could produce completely objective measurement and defined goals, the CDC and vaccine manufacturers wouldn't want them to exist. If a concrete threshold did exist, it would be a target, and they don't want to hit the target. Do you and I get the freedom to choose whether to walk in or out our front door no matter the associated risks and without government imposed consequences?

39 minutes ago, Pooter said:

If you have statistical evidence (from a reliable source.. that you interpreted correctly) pointing in a different direction I would love to see it. Until then I will defer to the people who's entire life's work is to make these determinations.

Who? Names. Who specifically is making the determination of "safe", "effective", how, and why do you personally trust them with your health? Please say Fauci. I'm ready for that one. 😄 If it's someone else, do I also get to produce an opposing argument from a healthcare professional who has made it their life's work? If someone is a nutritionist, do you want them dictating to you what you can and can't eat whether you agree or not? And should you job depend on it?

39 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Effective - the vaccine reduces your risk of contracting covid and drastically reduces your risk of hospitalization, and death.

Great! I think you should take it. But, what if I or my doctor assesses my risk of hospitalization and death due to COVID to be low because I am healthy and I have tested for, and possess, natural antibodies? Isn't that what vaccines are for? My body has already done the work. And I can cite studies that show natural immunity is better.

39 minutes ago, Pooter said:

On booster shots: why is there a new flu shot every year? Because immunity wears off and new variants emerge. As for how many boosters to get and when they will be approved for the general public, I will once again defer to experts. Much like they defer to me on matters pertaining to flying airplanes.

There's a new flu shot every year because flu shots do not eradicate the flu. (Although COVID has) So, are you saying that COVID, also, cannot be eliminated?

I think you're way too deferential to unnamed experts you've never met and likely know virtually nothing about. That is entirely your choice. When it comes to matters of my own health, I'm not going to be. If I have a health problem, I discuss it with my own personal doctor, whom I know and he knows me. I still get to choose whether to accept his diagnosis and treatment.

How many times in history must it be demonstrated that being deferential and submissive to government power is bad for your health?

Edited by torqued
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pooter said:

What goalposts exactly?  Throughout all of these discussions I have maintained the same exact points. 
 

1. the vaccine is safe and effective and no one so far has provided convincing evidence to the contrary. To include your and  @torqued's statistically illiterate flailing. 
 

2. While I think it's a very bad plan to pass on the vaccine, getting the shot should be entirely your choice unless you voluntarily surrendered some of your medical autonomy by joining the military. 
 

My suggestion, stick to what you're good at and keep posting your tangential Alex Jones-esque rants with a healthy side of racial slurs.

As @torquedstated, you’re entirely too trusting in unelected bureaucrats by appealing to their authority alone. Take a listen to a few of the thousands of physicians that have been speaking opposing views about the injections. I’d suggest the groups America’s Frontline Doctors and Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance who represent dissenting medical professionals.

It should be our choice as civilians, and this drug doesn’t meet the burden of necessity and safety for our military. It’s wild to me that no one sees this as a national security issue to force the ENTIRE military to use this drug that no one can honestly say knows what it’ll do to people under certain conductions or after a number of years. Remember: clinical trials don’t end until 2023…..

Alex Jones is based and I suggest you take a listen to some of his stuff. No really, if you’re so secure in your beliefs and dispositions, it should be no issue for you to listen in good faith to what he talks about, because you’ll still be right, right? I’d suggest episode #911 with Joe Rogan. There’s two more that follow that episode with Rogan too.

What racial slur? Chink? Chinese is a nationality, not a race.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 3:00 PM, Negatory said:

Here's a typical example of doublethink where morality fits you when you like. This one actually plays directly into the abortion debate that helped get us here. I sincerely hope that you, and anyone else claiming to have moral issues with how the vaccine was created, never used any of these drugs (I am 100% certain you have, as you're in the military and have been vaccinated):

FetalCells.thumb.jpg.38f86c8a4dc0a9113a27561d73b46690.jpg

 

 

So let me get this right.  A product, actually the first 3 products I looked up, (Tylenol, ibuprofen, Motrin) were all developed and produced in 1960s and before.    And hek93 came about in 1970s in some Netherlands lab?    
 

your meme/real life attempt to grasp at straws is garbage.    If I take water and do a test on it using HEK293, does that really make water bad?   I don’t think so.  
 

the vaccines were quick-footed by using hek293.   They were done that way to be the first to market and to make money.    The most money.   Evil

Edited by bennynova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bennynova said:

So let me get this right.  A product, actually the first 3 products I looked up, (Tylenol, ibuprofen, Motrin) were all developed and produced in 1960s and before.    And hek93 came about in 1970s in some Netherlands lab?    
 

your meme/real life attempt to grasp at straws is garbage.    If I take water and do a test on it using HEK293, does that really make water bad?   I don’t think so.  
 

the vaccines were quick-footed by using hek293.   They were done that way to be the first to market and to make money.    The most money.   Evil

Modern formulations sold on shelves were not produced in the 60s. Those formulas have been tweaked and tinkered with, including the use of the HEK-293 cell line.  

Pepsi also made use of this cell line.

BTW, if you got the MMR vaccine... the rubella vaccine was developed using cells from a human embryo aborted in the 1960s - a different cell line than HEK-293.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of when states started making seat belt use mandatory..I can still hear it..."I got my rights"  "seat belts can kill you"  "blah de blah"   ..This from guyz who were forced to wear a seat belt and shoulder harness from release to set...in a vehicle with essentially a zero chance of crashing....but drove on out the gate in a vehicle where  safe travel is questionable at best...often with a brewski or three on board..

This bug is turning into the research project from hell..which will be helpful down the line..I guess..pray for the medics...

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alpharatz said:

Reminds me of when states started making seat belt use mandatory..I can still hear it..."I got my rights"  "seat belts can kill you"  "blah de blah"   ..This from guyz who were forced to wear a seat belt and shoulder harness from release to set...in a vehicle with essentially a zero chance of crashing....but drove on out the gate in a vehicle where  safe travel is questionable at best...often with a brewski or three on board..

This bug is turning into the research project from hell..which will be helpful down the line..I guess..pray for the medics...

 

What?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dream big said:

What?

2020 has given me a PhD in tyrannyspeak, I will translate:


“the CV19 vaccine is like a seatbelt, but for your immune system. There ARE NO SAFTEY CONCERNS! Every case in VAERS is a lie. isn’t that great news? Do YoU uNeRstanD my nuanced analogy?
 

plus, Our lord and savior, Boe Jiden, even said ”this is not about liberty”. The job of our government is to protect the citizens, not protect its citizens rights. In order for my shot to work— everyone needs to get one. Just give up your rights to bodily autonomy- I promise we won’t take any more of your rights away. Praise be to Fauci, praise be to Pfizer, help us clean the unvaxxed with our immune system seatbelts!”

…or at least that’s what I’d imagine it would sound like… 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point to ponder: why would vaccine-created immunity force viral mutations any more than natural immunity gained by having a variant of the virus. Immunity pushes mutations, period. Does the virus know or care where you got that immunity from? 
 

Here's another possible explanation:

“Early in the pandemic, only a limited number of labs were sequencing virus from infections, but since late 2020, surveillance programs have been ramping up,” Professor Jennifer Grier, Clinical Assistant Professor in Immunology at the University of South Carolina, told Reuters via email.

“Effectively, we are hearing so much more about viral variants in 2021 because, globally, we now have the systems in place to consistently detect and track mutations,” Grier added.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Point to ponder: why would vaccine-created immunity force viral mutations any more than natural immunity gained by having a variant of the virus. Immunity pushes mutations, period. Does the virus know or care where you got that immunity from? 
 

Here's another possible explanation:

“Early in the pandemic, only a limited number of labs were sequencing virus from infections, but since late 2020, surveillance programs have been ramping up,” Professor Jennifer Grier, Clinical Assistant Professor in Immunology at the University of South Carolina, told Reuters via email.

“Effectively, we are hearing so much more about viral variants in 2021 because, globally, we now have the systems in place to consistently detect and track mutations,” Grier added.

Found this in less than a minute, but there's an endless supply of similar research. What's the probability of a rushed to market experiemental vaccine being "leaky?".

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts.

There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (“hotter”) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so “hot” that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves. Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease. The future challenge is to identify whether there are other types of vaccines used in animals and humans that might also generate these evolutionary risks.

 

Edited by torqued
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, torqued said:

Found this in less than a minute, but there's an endless supply of similar research. What's the probability of a rushed to market experiemental vaccine being "leaky?".

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts.

There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (“hotter”) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so “hot” that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves. Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked. But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist. This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease. The future challenge is to identify whether there are other types of vaccines used in animals and humans that might also generate these evolutionary risks.

 

It's an interesting argument and I definitely understand how it could be possible with certain diseases. But we have experts saying specifically that isn't happening with covid and the perceived spike in variants is due to the entire world mobilizing to look for and classify them.

And my question still stands.. the vast majority of unvaxxed people who contract covid also survive and end up with some level of immunity, which is not 100% perfect. There are already unvaxxed people re-catching it, and spreading it. One might call the natural immunity "leaky" as well.  So how is it different from the perspective of driving mutations?  
 

Edit: also covid was already rapidly mutating prior to the vaccine. At least 7 variants were identified pre-vaccine including the current most concerning strain delta, which first presented in India back in December 2020. 

Edited by Pooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pooter said:

It's an interesting argument and I definitely understand how it could be possible with certain diseases. But we have experts saying specifically that isn't happening with covid and the perceived spike in variants is due to the entire world mobilizing to look for and classify them.

I'll ask, once again, for you to specify the "experts" to which you a deferring all substantiations for this argument. Who said this is not happening with COVID?

So the reason we have an increasing amount of variants is not because viruses mutate and create branches on the genomic tree, but because scientists are just looking for and finding previously existing related genomes? That makes no sense. Again, who is saying this?

37 minutes ago, Pooter said:

 

And my question still stands.. the vast majority of unvaxxed people who contract covid also survive and end up with some level of immunity, which is not 100% perfect. There are already unvaxxed people re-catching it, and spreading it. One might call the natural immunity "leaky" as well.  So how is it different from the perspective of driving mutations?  
 

Edit: also covid was already rapidly mutating prior to the vaccine. At least 7 variants were identified pre-vaccine including the current most concerning strain delta, which first presented in India back in December 2020. 

The answer to your question is in the link I provided. You should read the entire paper because you must not have. Imperfect vaccines that only lesson the symptoms, drive the mutations which benefit from virulence without the cost to the host. It's the same process which drives antibiotic resistant bacteria.

You get a imperfect vaccine created for an unknown virus genome,  and you may not know you're sick when you get COVID. Viruses mutations that the vaccine wasn't tailor made specifically for are allowed to replicate and spread unbeknownst to you.

I get a COVID infection, know I'm sick, take the appropriate therapeutics and measures while my body creates anti-bodies for the exact genome that I am infected with.

Here are some "experts" you can refer specifically to in the future:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...